You may only choose one... so choose wisely.

Creating bold exterior designs.

If you can't get people to look, nothing else will compel them to give your products a chance. Looks get you noticed, and GM desperately needs people to notice.

A close second would be weight reduction.

But styling sells, first and foremost.

Sorry but to do it right one is not enough.

Just one of these is like sending in a army with more bullets to war but not sending the guns.

All of these need to be done. What good is a great looking car with an old engine? OR what good is a light car in a bad economy that no one can afford?

We need a all of the above.

Edited October 15, 201015 yr by hyperv6

Sorry but to do it right one is not enough.

Just one of these is like sending in a army with more bullets to war but not sending the guns.

That wasn't the question.

Top priority was.

In a crowded market where most new cars are at least competent, styling is what makes a car stand out.

And, it is the one category where we haven't seen much action from GM in quite some time. We know that they have been hard at work on everything else.

It's time to make us ooooh and ahhhh.

Regarding styling, the Upfront in the latest issue of Car & Driver has a feature where some New York art and design guru or somethinganother grades the styling of all of the major automakers.

GM got an A-.

Here's what some of the other guys got:

Ford got a B.

Chrysler got a B.

Kia got an A-.

Hyundai got a B-.

Toyota (rightfully) got a D+.

Honda got a C-.

Interesting.

Time to press that advantage.

I voted interior quality...

One thing I would add, which is not as part of the options - Marketing and Efforts for Perception Change. That MUST be #1, because GM is committed to the other points.

I actually think #1 is making, stronger, more focused brands, because people are attracted to strong brand images. That is why they buy a $5 coffee at Starbucks or a $70 shirt from Ralph Lauren or a $5,000 watch from Rolex.

But of that group I voted weight. It isn't something a customer would look at, but lower weight means better acceleration, braking, handling and gas mileage. Lower weight creates positives in many other areas, where as exterior style or interior quality is only helping one area.

One thing I would add, which is not as part of the options - Marketing and Efforts for Perception Change. That MUST be #1, because GM is committed to the other points.

I'd argue that styling is the gateway to improving perception.

Regarding styling, the Upfront in the latest issue of Car & Driver has a feature where some New York art and design guru or somethinganother grades the styling of all of the major automakers.

GM got an A-.

Yeah, I read that... but I'm not putting a lot of stock in his opinion. He gave Jaguar/Land Rover an 'A'... citing the ugly blacked out Jaguar C pillars and Land Rover light jewelry as a good things. Ugh.

all of the above

powertrain tech - GM is getting there, but they just don't apply tech fast enough across their model lineups.

interior quality - where GM has failed the most, and one that gives buyers the biggest initial impression on the quality of a car.

reducing weight, hows about not using so much cheaper steel?

bold exterior designs, sure, but then you have issues like the camaro with no back seat, or the sky solstice with no trunk, or the CTS coupe with no view out the back.

warranties, GM is not bad but it is behind a few key competitors.

AFFORDABILITY - GM is not stocking entries in cheaper segments like other makes are. and GM keeps trying to push prices up for stuff they shouldn't be. GM is going to be getting seriously undercut in pricing in lots of volume segments. they can't maintain their market share unless they go where the customers are.

all of the above

powertrain tech - GM is getting there, but they just don't apply tech fast enough across their model lineups.

interior quality - where GM has failed the most, and one that gives buyers the biggest initial impression on the quality of a car.

reducing weight, hows about not using so much cheaper steel?

bold exterior designs, sure, but then you have issues like the camaro with no back seat, or the sky solstice with no trunk, or the CTS coupe with no view out the back.

warranties, GM is not bad but it is behind a few key competitors.

AFFORDABILITY - GM is not stocking entries in cheaper segments like other makes are. and GM keeps trying to push prices up for stuff they shouldn't be. GM is going to be getting seriously undercut in pricing in lots of volume segments. they can't maintain their market share unless they go where the customers are.

Agreed, especially on the styling front. I hate it when design cuts into function. And the trouble with polarizing design is that it alienates a significant portion of consumers, and it doesn't age well. Speaking for myself, I don't want a "look at me!" car. You can have something that's stylish and aggressive, like the Mustang, without being flashy or vulgar.

GM needs a lot more work on branding and marketing, IMO. Ford, for instance, has a very consistent brand DNA, and they've managed to package and sell and market their technologies as class-exclusive innovations: EcoBoost, MyKey, MyFordTouch, and SYNC.

OK let's imagine a random encounter between the owner of a new GM car and a passer-by. Assume that the car has an especially nice exterior design and that all of the other topics of this poll have been addressed well.

Passer-by: Nice looking car.

Proud owner: Thanks!

Passer-by: What kind is it?

Proud owner: It's a Chevy (Buick, Cadillac)

Passer-by: Is it nice inside?

Proud owner (opening door): Here, check it out.

Passer-by: Oh, that is nice. Does it get good mileage?

Proud owner: Best in class.

Passer by: How about the warranty?

Proud owner: 100,000 miles.

Passer by: I guess it was expensive...

Proud owner: I think I got pretty good deal, it is definitely worth what I paid.

Passer-by: Well, thanks for showing it to me.

Proud owner: My pleasure.

This conversation made possible by great design.

GM's biggest hurdle is getting people to stop and look. Until they do, all of the tech, the interior, the drivetrain, the weight,the warranty, and the price never come into play.

Bold design is the way to get people looking.

And talking.

In the above hypothetical the owner goes away with a sense of satisfaction in his purchase decision, and the passer-by gains a favorable impression of the new GM car.

And it only happened because of great exterior design.

I voted "vehicle weight" because it's the most ignored and the most needing of improvement.

Powertrain already has a solid base.

Interior styling has already improved greatly. I expect further improvements in material quality now that GM doesn't have the legacy costs hanging around it's neck, but those will be incremental rather than a radical change. Only two interiors in test cars that I've driven were disappointments. (traverse and terrain) On the traverse it was an issue of material quality AND build quality. On the Terrain it was just a build quality issue, but the styling and materials were fine.

Bold exterior styling: Not everything needs to be "bold", but it still should be head turning.

Warranty - GM is fine here. Warranty is something you sell on when you don't have anything else going for you. I expect Hyundai/Kia to dial theirs back eventually now that they have product that sells on it's own merits.

That wasn't the question.

Top priority was.

In a crowded market where most new cars are at least competent, styling is what makes a car stand out.

And, it is the one category where we haven't seen much action from GM in quite some time. We know that they have been hard at work on everything else.

It's time to make us ooooh and ahhhh.

That is my point one is not enough anymore in a crowded market.

Powertain is a must and there is no choice to meet goverment regs for mileage and emissions. Everyone is doing this already. GM is doing well but needs to still get better to meet future standards.

Interior quality See Chrysler comment below.

Less weight GM still needs to lose weight like everyone else in the industry to meet future regs.

Styling, Look at Chrysler They have has some nice looking cars over the last few years but they had crap for interiors and so so on quality control. How are they doing?

You may fool a buyer once with styling but you will never get him back when the engine dies or a cheap door handle on the inside comes off. You already know what bad paint does.

Quality and warranties are a must. GM's rep for quality is not so bad they have to get crazy here. They may tweek a few parts of their warranties to keep competitive if the other change much.

More affordable in the next 5 years min is a must for all MFG. With the economy in the tank and not moving forward the monthly payment is a major key for buyers.

My point is Hyundai is doing all of these questions at one time. They have pulled themselves out of the crapper by doing a balanced approch. Ford now is also using the same approch accept for price part.

I understand the question but just don't agree that there is one area that is more important than another since the market is not realy working this way anymore. The winning way to go is stike in all areas equally and grow the name and image back. Leaving one area behind is a short term gain and a way to lose a coustomer when the other companies can offer all the above.

My view is GM's main top priority is a balanced approch in all of these areas.

Edited October 16, 201015 yr by hyperv6

The rules for this poll clearly state that you may only pick one.

Obviously, all listed aspects are critical (as well as those not listed).

That part is a huge "DUH".

I approached the question by picking what I saw as most critical - and then explaining why.

I stand by both the choice, and the reasoning.

If the customers aren't looking, GM isn't selling.

I do believe that the top engineering priority has to be weight at this moment in time. It's absolutely critical.

But if it isn't wrapped in a compelling design, it won't matter.

People will just walk past it without caring.

Top company priority : profitability

BTW, I voted Vehicular weight.

This is not because the others are not as important. In fact, I think that exterior styling and interior quality are perhaps more important in getting sales up. However, I honestly think GM styling in recent years is actually pretty good and they have made huge strides in interior quality. Whether they are on the way to the top of the class may be debatable, I am happy with the progress.

On the other hand, the mass of GM vehicles are egregiously porky. There is no excuse for the LaCrosse to be tipping the scales at 4000 lbs when a similarly sized and similarly insulated ES350 is 3600 lbs. There is no excuse for the CTS to be 300 lbs heavier than a 5-series, for the Camaro to be 400 lbs more than the Mustang or the Cruze to be 300 lbs more than the Civic. Permanently carrying an NFL linebacker and his mother around makes it so much harder to beat the competition in acceleration, handling or fuel economy. Get the weight down a bit and all of a sudden everything gets better.

that's what she said....

Definitely weight reduction imo

Cover all of your bases. Make sure that there is no segment that GM isn't meeting and beating the competition. Minivans, small Chevy sport cars, etc. Update the Impala ASAP. Make sure GM cars score very well on reliability studies. Update cars more often. Retro vehicles sell well...HHR and Camaro prove this. Consistency in names. Please don't change names every model. Bring back classic names to Chevy, Cadillac and Buick. Sell the Caprice police car as a civilian car.

I voted "vehicle weight" because it's the most ignored and the most needing of improvement.

Powertrain already has a solid base.

Interior styling has already improved greatly. I expect further improvements in material quality now that GM doesn't have the legacy costs hanging around it's neck, but those will be incremental rather than a radical change. Only two interiors in test cars that I've driven were disappointments. (traverse and terrain) On the traverse it was an issue of material quality AND build quality. On the Terrain it was just a build quality issue, but the styling and materials were fine.

Bold exterior styling: Not everything needs to be "bold", but it still should be head turning.

Warranty - GM is fine here. Warranty is something you sell on when you don't have anything else going for you. I expect Hyundai/Kia to dial theirs back eventually now that they have product that sells on it's own merits.

I agree. GM overall is fine on most of these as you said, but weight drags them down. Weight makes the car slower, handle worse, brake worse, and use more gas. Weight is often a top complaint by car magazines reviewing GM products.

Toyota styling is bland and boring, yet they are the biggest and richest automaker in the world. I however disagree about Hyundai, I don't think they will cut their warranty, it gives them an advantage that no one else is willing to match.

I agree. GM overall is fine on most of these as you said, but weight drags them down. Weight makes the car slower, handle worse, brake worse, and use more gas. Weight is often a top complaint by car magazines reviewing GM products.

While I mostly agree with you on this, overweight GM products stop and handle just as well as what you can buy from any other mainstream automaker.

Toyota styling is bland and boring, yet they are the biggest and richest automaker in the world.

Yeah, well that doesn't mean GM should be mimicking Toyota and start building cars with baboon-nose grilles, unsightly stretch marks, flabby mid-sections, and fat-assed rear ends.

Toyota sells, bar none, the worst designed cars on the road. There is more soul, logic, effort, and thought in the design of the Yugo 24 than anything Toyota's building right now.

GM is outselling Toyota BTW. Toyota sold 147,000 cars last month versus GM's 172,000. Just thought you might would like a reminder.

I however disagree about Hyundai, I don't think they will cut their warranty, it gives them an advantage that no one else is willing to match.

As Hyundai's quality perceptions continue to improve, I think they might just trim their warranty back a bit to reduce costs.

While I mostly agree with you on this, overweight GM products stop and handle just as well as what you can buy from any other mainstream automaker.

And while kudos should go to GM for engineering their cars to overcome the laws of physics while having such a weight penalty, imagine what they would be able to do with vehicles that weigh 300-500lbs less. The Camaro and Mustang run so close to each other in ability that most differences are mitigated by driver skill.... now imagine a Camaro with the Mustang's lighter weight.

As Hyundai's quality perceptions continue to improve, I think they might just trim their warranty back a bit to reduce costs.

As I said, warranty is what you sell on when you have nothing else going for you. Up until very recently, both Hyundai and Kia were near the back of the pack of any comparison test they were in and their reliability and quality perceptions were the worst of just about anyone. There was no compelling reason to buy a Hyundai/Kia other than Low Cost + Warranty. Now that they've equaled or exceeded their competition in the actual product, I expect the warranty to go first and costs to rise second.

Why? Because once the perceptions have changed to be more positive (which there is every sign that's happening already) Hyundai can make more profit on the same product. Hyundai is really aiming for Toyota's perception position they held in 2002. Once they can get people to buy a Hyundai regardless of warranty, looks, or actual reliability (as opposed to perceived) they will have succeeded and the warranty will be toast.

And while kudos should go to GM for engineering their cars to overcome the laws of physics while having such a weight penalty, imagine what they would be able to do with vehicles that weigh 300-500lbs less. The Camaro and Mustang run so close to each other in ability that most differences are mitigated by driver skill.... now imagine a Camaro with the Mustang's lighter weight.

Trust me, I'm hoping GM cuts all of the fat out of the F6 Camaro (and does the same for the rest of the corporate family).

However, I didn't agree with how smk's post seemed to imply that because all GM cars are fat, they stop, go, and turn like an old Mack truck.

As I said, warranty is what you sell on when you have nothing else going for you. Up until very recently, both Hyundai and Kia were near the back of the pack of any comparison test they were in and their reliability and quality perceptions were the worst of just about anyone. There was no compelling reason to buy a Hyundai/Kia other than Low Cost + Warranty. Now that they've equaled or exceeded their competition in the actual product, I expect the warranty to go first and costs to rise second.

Why? Because once the perceptions have changed to be more positive (which there is every sign that's happening already) Hyundai can make more profit on the same product. Hyundai is really aiming for Toyota's perception position they held in 2002. Once they can get people to buy a Hyundai regardless of warranty, looks, or actual reliability (as opposed to perceived) they will have succeeded and the warranty will be toast.

Agreed. Nailed it exactly.

Oh I don't even agree that all of GM's products are fat.... some of the recent ones are, but only if you compare only price and not size to it's competition. SMK's favorite subject is how "fat" the CTS is compared to the 3-series..... well duh... the 5-series is "fat" compared to the 3-series too. The CTS is within a 10th of an inch of the 5-series in nearly every dimension and is within 70lbs - 150lbs in weight depending on equipment.

The Traverse is rather portly if you're comparing it to the Pilot, but look at the size differences between the two.

It really takes a "special" kind of student to expect a mid-size car to weigh the same as a large compact.

While I mostly agree with you on this, overweight GM products stop and handle just as well as what you can buy from any other mainstream automaker.

Yeah, well that doesn't mean GM should be mimicking Toyota and start building cars with baboon-nose grilles, unsightly stretch marks, flabby mid-sections, and fat-assed rear ends.

Toyota sells, bar none, the worst designed cars on the road. There is more soul, logic, effort, and thought in the design of the Yugo 24 than anything Toyota's building right now.

GM is outselling Toyota BTW. Toyota sold 147,000 cars last month versus GM's 172,000. Just thought you might would like a reminder.

For the most part, GM cars perform on par with the middle of the class they are in, but they don't have a lot of class leaders, the low weight will help there. The 4,000 lb Camaro vs the 3600 lb Mustang is the best example, imagine if the Camaro lost 400 lbs.

I don't think GM should copy Toyota at all, or any one else, because the copy is never as good as the original. But Toyota has done a great job proving that it isn't about styling to most car buyers. So I don't think styling needs to be GM's top priority. GM beat Toyota in the US last month, but worldwide Toyota is #1 and Toyota has the deepest pockets of any car company. They rose to power with crap styling, and had a $17 billion net profit a few years ago. It may take GM 10 years combined to produce that.

I think Hyundai will keep the warranty, as their cars get better, their warranty costs drop, if they could afford it before, they will afford it in the future. And they know that no one else will match them, Hyundai has a 5/60,000 bumper to bumper warranty, while Chevy, Honda and Toyota are 3/36,000.

Hyundai doesn't seem like the pull back sort of company, I think they are going to keep their foot on the gas pedal and see who can keep up with them.

BTW, I voted Vehicular weight.

This is not because the others are not as important. In fact, I think that exterior styling and interior quality are perhaps more important in getting sales up. However, I honestly think GM styling in recent years is actually pretty good and they have made huge strides in interior quality. Whether they are on the way to the top of the class may be debatable, I am happy with the progress.

On the other hand, the mass of GM vehicles are egregiously porky. There is no excuse for the LaCrosse to be tipping the scales at 4000 lbs when a similarly sized and similarly insulated ES350 is 3600 lbs. There is no excuse for the CTS to be 300 lbs heavier than a 5-series, for the Camaro to be 400 lbs more than the Mustang or the Cruze to be 300 lbs more than the Civic. Permanently carrying an NFL linebacker and his mother around makes it so much harder to beat the competition in acceleration, handling or fuel economy. Get the weight down a bit and all of a sudden everything gets better.

Though I voted powertrain myself (tech needs to move faster), I really agree with dwight here.

I do believe that the top engineering priority has to be weight at this moment in time. It's absolutely critical.

But if it isn't wrapped in a compelling design, it won't matter.

People will just walk past it without caring.

Talk about DUH.

No matter how good it looks if people can't afford it what good is it?

Edited October 17, 201015 yr by hyperv6

The warranty issue is to win the trust of buyers after you were making crap.

GM has been making pretty good cars and may not have to win people as much a Kia did but they still need to keep competitive.

If they built the cars better then warranties should not be an issue. That way the warranty is less of a cost and more of a promise that you have built a better car. If something does go wrong you will stand by your work.

Waranties are gambles but it is one a company can help control the odds.

Top company priority : profitability

Where do I vote for this one? It is the best choice.

I didn't vote because GM needs to do all thats listed before they have something people want to buy across the line.

Example the Chevy Cruze, while it may be just fine for some it's not evan on my long list as a new car for one under powered glaring reason. The CIVICsi is high on the list at this time and date.

PS: adding an RS look at me pkg will not put the car on my list.

Edited October 18, 201015 yr by RjION

I didn't vote because GM needs to do all thats listed before they have something people want to buy across the line.

Example the Chevy Cruze, while it may be just fine for some it's not evan on my long list as a new car for one under powered glaring reason. The CIVICsi is high on the list at this time and date.

PS: adding an RS look at me pkg will not put the car on my list.

Nobody is saying that GM shouldn't tackle all of the items. The key here is what is most important amongst all these important things. A Poll with an "All of the above" option would be worthless in shedding light on what members of this board feels is the #1 concern regarding GM products.

BTW, since you brought up the Civic, will you care to share what is it about the Civic that you like over the Cruze?

Gee , I hope it's not the looks of the new one...I liked the current gen, and the new one really screws that up. Haven't seen the inside yet, but at this point, I'm not going to have to either.